The Department of Agriculture is presenting thousands of workers with a stark choice tied to its broad relocation initiative: move to a new duty station to retain their positions, or walk away entirely.
USDA is carrying out a far-reaching restructuring effort that calls for shifting over 50 percent of its Washington, D.C.-area staff to regional hubs nationwide before the close of this summer. Workers affected by the relocation plans belong to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, Forest Service, Economic Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and Food and Nutrition Service. Roughly 90 percent of USDA’s workforce is already based outside the D.C. region.
The department is establishing separate decision deadlines for workers at each of its sub-agencies.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service is requiring several hundred of its employees to confirm by July 8 whether they intend to relocate to St. Louis or to one of the agency’s regional offices. NASS has roughly 800 workers, the majority serving as agricultural statisticians. The agency is regarded as a leading federal authority on crop production, livestock, and farm economic data. It carries out a nationwide census every five years, gathering farm-level statistics from every county in the country.
In a memo distributed on Monday, NASS stated that workers who accept the relocation assignment must report to their new workstation by Sept. 21. The agency noted in its communication that employees could request to transition to their new location before their formal transfer date on a voluntary basis.
“NASS upholds a policy of maximizing the effective and efficient use of staffing and other resources to meet program objectives. Based on operational requirements, leadership has made the decision to reassign your position,” the memo read.
For the affected USDA workers, the decision is often agonizing. Internal union polling indicates that most members would prefer to separate from the agency rather than uproot to a new city. That pattern already unfolded during the first Trump administration, when USDA attempted to shift hundreds of positions to Kansas City. The department’s research units experienced severe staffing gaps that took years to repair.
Still, regardless of which path they take, NASS workers qualify for financial incentives. According to a notice reviewed by Federal News Network and interviews with affected staff, NASS employees who agree to relocate and pledge to remain at their new office for two years will be eligible for a relocation bonus. The notice, however, offers few specifics about the payment amounts.
A representative for the department declined to elaborate on the relocation incentive or whether workers at other USDA branches might receive comparable benefits.
“The secretary remains committed to moving forward in a deliberate and thoughtful way to fulfill the president’s directive to strengthen accountability to American taxpayers,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Each mission area is attentive to the essential services it provides and the communities it supports, and each announcement and rollout plan reflects that awareness.”
The memo also confirmed that USDA’s research, education, and economics division received authorization to extend buyout and early retirement proposals to workers who have been issued relocation notices. All agencies under that division fall within the scope of USDA’s reorganization efforts. The Forest Service informed its employees earlier this month that it would extend Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP) to staff affected by the relocations.
Workers at the Food Safety and Inspection Service — which is transferring roughly two-thirds of its D.C.-area staff to what it calls “mission-critical sites,” such as locations in Iowa and Georgia — received notice last week that they have until June 30 to decide whether to move or resign. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, meanwhile, sent relocation notices to non-bargaining-unit employees on Monday. Bargaining-unit employees have not yet been notified.
A NIFA employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concern about adverse consequences told Federal News Network that they are “actively looking for other work,” but haven’t made a final decision.
“If I land a position that works for my situation, I’ll leave the federal government, but I’d really rather not,” the NIFA employee explained. “My family can’t handle a stretch of unemployment without income. If relocation is our only option, then we’ll move. We’ll leave behind relatives and friends and a lifestyle we cherish.”
USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden testified before lawmakers last year that agency heads anticipate fewer workers will decline to relocate this time, given that sweeping cuts across the federal government have tightened the job market in the D.C. area considerably.
“I suspect many of them will opt to come, because with reductions hitting other federal agencies right here in Washington, the local job market simply isn’t what it used to be,” Vaden told the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee last June.
The NIFA employee noted that many of their coworkers were brought on as remote hires and are now being expected to relocate to cities “most of us have never set foot in and have absolutely no connections to.” They added that the one-time relocation payment “will barely scratch the surface of our real expenses.”
“Now I’m forced to calculate how much money we’d lose by making the move versus how long I could be jobless if I resign, and weigh it all against what makes the most sense,” the NIFA employee said. “When I entered public service — or really, when I took any career — I never imagined I’d have to reach into my own pocket just to hang on to my job. But that’s exactly where we are.”
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told members of the House Agriculture Committee during a hearing last week that strategically distributing staff across the country will be “an enormous enhancement” to USDA’s research capabilities.
“We have some outstanding researchers, but the reality is that the majority of them don’t want to be based in Washington, D.C.,” Rollins remarked. “The difficulty is that when you have decades of research personnel concentrated here in D.C., they do remarkable work, but you start missing out on attracting some of the very best talent — people who simply don’t want to relocate to D.C., where the cost of living and the expense of conducting research are significantly higher.”
Surveys conducted by USDA employee unions, however, paint a different picture. An internal poll run by the National Treasury Employees Union in May revealed that 80 percent of D.C.-based FNS workers would resign rather than transfer this summer. A separate survey by the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3403, which represents ERS and NIFA workers, found that around 76 percent of respondents said they have no intention of relocating.
NASS employees who accept the relocation and commit to remaining at their new office for one year will receive partial reimbursement for moving expenses through USDA’s new “lump sum” payment system. AFGE has indicated that the new approach is less favorable than what USDA offered during the first Trump administration’s relocation effort.
Under traditional federal relocation policies, the government covers a range of costs such as shipping household belongings, transporting employees and their families, tax assistance, and additional items like temporary storage. Under USDA’s revised “lump sum” model, moving employees will receive a flat reimbursement amount based on the department’s cost estimates for their move. USDA maintained that the lump-sum approach will speed up payment processing, provide greater cost predictability, and reduce paperwork. But AFGE officials warn that some workers could end up paying thousands of dollars out of pocket.
“Moving and relocation costs associated with this reassignment will be reimbursed by the agency in line with the relocation lump-sum program,” NASS wrote in its notice. “The exact amount is determined individually, but under the lump-sum program, each employee receives a single payment calculated using personal data to cover relocation expenses.”
Between January 2025 and January 2026, USDA shed approximately 20,000 employees, according to federal workforce data published by the Office of Personnel Management. Since the second Trump administration began, USDA branches slated for upcoming relocations have seen staffing levels drop by 30 to 40 percent.
To reach this reporter regarding recent federal government developments, please email jheckman@federalnewsnetwork.com, or connect on Signal at jheckman.29
Copyright
© 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
